Brulliard, K. (2016, 08/05). Alaska to face new bans on hunting. Washington Post Retrieved from
Although Alaska’s government has long allowed hunters to hunt wildlife this will change with
the passing of a new law by the U.S. Fishing and Wildlife service that has put in place laws to ban
nearly all predator hunting in Alaska. This article contains arguments from both sides of the
controversy of hunting. Some claim that these new laws against predator hunting are helpful and
allow all people to experience seeing the majestic Alaskan wildlife for the first time. Whereas others
claim that “This unilateral power grab fundamentally alters Alaska’s authority to manage wildlife
across all areas of our state” (Brulliard 2). This point of this article is that there is a controversy
between the passing of the passing of these new laws and although some agree with these laws,
many also disagree. Although the long held traditions of hunting in Alaska are a deep part of the
Alaskan culture, some have morphed these traditions into practices that start to seem inhumane to
animals such as hunting and killing animals from a helicopter or hunting for sport not food. In turn
this was partially the reason why these new bans on predator hunting in Alaska were passed.
This source was helpful for me because it allowed me to begin to grasp the controversy of
hunting and hear from both sides of the controversy. This article relates to my other article I found in
the way that they both relate to the banning or improvement of hunting regulations. I found that this
source was not biased because it gave both sides of the controversy an equal say.
This source fits into my research because it allows me to grasp the controversy that is
present in a specific area such as Alaska. This can then be used with research from other areas of
the world and begin to relate to the worldwide controversy of hunting. This source gave me a variety
of different insights about this worldwide controversy and showed me how both sides feel about this
Emslie, R., & Knight, M. (2016, 03/19). Hunting is crucial to conservation. The Independent
Retrieved from http://sks.sirs.com
The article “Hunting is Crucial to Conservation” argued that animal ecosystems in African
game parks would actually be worse off without trophy hunting. This was backed by the support of
the United Kingdom’s Prince William. The article covered the controversy of trophy hunting in
African game parks. The authors began by covering the benefits of trophy hunting in Africa. Mr.
Emslie and Mr. Knight argued that “Ethical hunting can provide a good revenue stream – and an
incentive to maintain wildlife – for people of the tourism trail” (Emslie and Knight 1). But the authors
also covered the downsides and disadvantages of trophy hunting. They did this by mentioning the
case of “pseudo-hunters” from Vietnam who “sought permits with the intention of exporting rhino
horn to illegal markets in Southeast Asia” (Emslie and Knight 2). Overall this article did an effective
job of presenting both sides of the controversy of trophy hunting in African game parks and I found it
valuable to my research.
Suzuki, D. (2016, 02/13). Grizzly bear trophy hunt is a sport like dogfighting. Daily Gleaner
Retrieved from http://sks.sirs.com
In the article “Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Is a Sport Like Dogfighting”, Canadian academic
David Suzuki argues that the Canadian territory of British Columbia is not as serious as they should
be about preventing the hunting of bears. Although British Columbia has prohibited the hunting of
“spirit bears”, or bears with white fur, bears with black coats can still carry the spirit bear gene. Mr.
Suzuki claims that “the British Columbian government has never recognized the Coastal First
Nations ban on trophy hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest” (Suzuki 2). This is of serious concern
because killing these bears, only for the purpose of obtaining a trophy to take home jeopardizes their
species and may take away future generations opportunity to admire the bears in their natural
habitat. Mr. Suzuki also claims that, “The bears eat salmon and drag the carcasses into the forest,
providing food for other animals, like eagles, and fertilizer for the massive rainforest trees” (Suzuki
2). Because of these bears’ important role in the British Columbian ecosystem, the extinction or
decline of bear populations would lead to a drastic change in British Columbia’s ecosystem. Mr.
Suzuki takes a stance against trophy hunting by focusing on the problems that it is causing in British
Columbia. He states, “I’m not against hunting–and many who oppose the trophy hunt agree that
sustainable hunting can be a good way to put food on the table. But shooting an animal–often on its
way to feed and thus an easy target–just to hang its head on the wall or put its skin on the floor is
not hunting. It’s killing for pleasure” (Suzuki 2).
This source is useful to me because it informed me of an issue caused by trophy hunting in
another area of the world. Compared to my other sources, it was particularly helpful since it was
written by an accomplished scholar who had a strong stance on trophy hunting. I believe that this
source was particularly unbiased and Mr. Suzuki tried his best to express less of his own opinions
and more of cold hard facts.
This source fits into my research by giving me yet another educated perspective on the issue
of trophy hunting and hunting in general. This led me to think about the perspective of being against
trophy hunting by supporting that opinion with facts and evidence.
Helliker, K. (2015, 12/21). An unlikely boom in trophy hunting. Wall Street Journal Retrieved
In the article “ An Unlikely Boom in Trophy Hunting”, journalist Kevin Helliker takes a bold
stance for trophy hunting by focusing on how many find enjoyment and fulfillment from it and how
multi-million dollar industries are funded by it. He starts his article by talking about the former San
Francisco Giants relief pitcher, Jeremy Affeldt and his experience and excitement he feels when
trophy hunting. Mr. Helliker then makes a claim that “today’s growth is being fueled by one segment
in particular: Big game” (Helliker 1). These “big game” hunts can cost upwards of $50,000 and
people are willing to pay that much on a regular basis which explains why “big game” hunting has
such a large impact on business and the economy. Mr. Helliker says, “Trophy hunts are a boon to
companies like 4-year old KUIU, a maker of lightweight yet warm hunting apparel and gear” (Helliker
2). Because of this, trophy hunting and hunting in general is funding an entire industry. Gary N.
Thornton, chief executive of the Wild Sheep Foundation convention, a worldwide hunting convention
states, “There’s definitely a driving interest in extreme hunting” (Helliker 2). The point of this article
was to show that trophy hunting drives an entire industry and is growing increasingly popular, in
spite of the recent controversy surrounding it.
This source was useful because it allowed me to understand how business and industries
are affected by trophy hunting and why people enjoy participating in it. This source was partially
biased, the author did sometimes show his bias throughout the article, but he also showed facts and
the industrial impact of trophy hunting.